Opinion
23-cv-2191-TC-TJJ
02-20-2024
ALEJANDRO MORALES RENTERAL, Plaintiff, v. JNB TRANSPORT, LLC, BLUE FREIGHT LOGISTICS, INC., and LUIS ORLANDO GUTIERREZ-GUEVARA, Defendants.
DISCOVERY MOTION HEARING ORDER
TERESA J. JAMES, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 16, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James conducted a hearing on the following discovery motions: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 58), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Remote Depositions (ECF No. 61); and Defendants' Motion to Quash (ECF No. 67). All three motions relate to Plaintiff's Notices to Take Video 30(b)(6) Corporate Deposition Duces Tecum of Defendants JNB Transport, LLC and Blue Freight Logistics, Inc. (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). Plaintiff appeared through counsel, Jeffrey A. Wilson. Defendants appeared through counsel, Kevin McMaster. This order memorializes and supplements the Court's rulings from the discovery motion hearing.
1. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 58) is denied for the reasons set forth on the record. Defendants' request for an order altogether prohibiting their Rule 30(b)(6) depositions is denied. Defendants' request for an order requiring Plaintiff to pay their expenses of the first deposition and Plaintiff's request for his attorney's fees in responding to the motion are denied.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Remote Depositions (ECF No. 61) is
granted for the reasons set forth on the record. The Court orders, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(4), that Plaintiff's attorney may take the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants' corporate representative(s) by remote means.
3. Defendants' Motion to Quash (ECF No. 67) is granted in part and denied in part.
a. Defendants' objections to the following Rule 30(b)(6) Topics are overruled in full: Topics 3, 7a-b, 8d, 9, 10a-f, 10h, 10k, 11a-b, and 11c.
b. Defendants' objections to the following Topics are sustained in full: Topics 2a, 4b, 4d, 4e, 4f, 5b, 6e, 10g, and 12.
c. Defendants' objections to the following Topics are sustained in part and overruled in part as stated on the record: Topics 1, 4c, 4g, 6b-d, 8a-b, 10j, 10(1), 13, and 14.
4. Counsel for the parties agreed on three sets of dates when both of them are available for scheduling the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants' corporate representative(s). By February 21, 2024, Defendants' counsel shall email chambers and opposing counsel, advising the Court of the dates on which the parties and Defendants' corporate representative(s) have agreed for Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. If they are unable to agree on the dates discussed, Defendants' counsel shall immediately suggest new dates for scheduling these depositions. The Court will then schedule another telephone conference unless the parties advise they have reached an agreement on new dates.
5. Defendants' oral motion for an extension of their deadline to file a motion to compel discovery is granted. Defendants are granted an extension, up to and including March 11, 2024, of their D. Kan. Rule 37.1(c) deadline for filing a
motion to compel regarding Plaintiff's answers and responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production. No further extensions of this deadline will be granted.
6. After consultation with the parties regarding the scheduling and timing of Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, Plaintiff's deposition, and other discovery remaining to be completed, the Court finds good cause to extend the case deadlines and settings by three months. A Second Amended Scheduling Order will be entered separately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.